IT is not, Sir, to give you an Account of our Conduct that we now write to you; we know you are not in the Circumſtance of approving it, and we are much troubled at it. Nor is it to Anſwer either your injurious Language, or your Menaces; the Holy Ghoſt confirms us againſt them both, when he tells us,1 Pet. 3.13, 14. Who is he that can hurt you, if you do only that which is good; but and if you ſuffer for Juſtice ſake, you ſhall be happy. Fear not what they would make you fear, nor trouble your ſelves; but ſanctifie our Lord God in your hearts, and be always ready to ſatisfie every one that asks you a reaſon of the hope which is in you. It is therefore in obedience to theſe laſt words we have now broken that profound Silence, in which the Moderation that our Faith, as yet but tender, inſpires into us, would retain us, were we not oblig'd to render an Account of that Faith, and to hinder the weak from being ſcandaliz'd at the Reproaches you have caſt upon us, and the Church from being diſhonor'd by thoſe who are not happy enough to know her. We ſhall not diſtinguiſh among us, as you have done, the Libertines, thoſe Chriſtians whom you call cowardly; nor thoſe whom you think you honor by the name of ſimple Apoſtates: becauſe we cannot believe, but that Diviſion was rather a Figure and an Artifice then any real Effect of your Sincerity. For we are perſwaded there is not one of theſe three pretended States, tho' never ſo Impious and Libertine, but your Zeal would willingly draw back again into your Party, and not one but you would rejoyce to ſee become a Martyr for your Religion. The haſte you would thereupon make to revoke the Sentence againſt them, ſhould make you conſider with how much raſhneſs you have paſs'd it. Doubtleſs, Sir, you never thought of this, when you durſt pronounce, There was no further ſacrifice remaining for their ſins, and like a God upon Earth, condemn'd them to devouring Flames.

Without examining too nicely this Judgment, God himſelf lets us ſee the raſhneſs, of it,Pſal. 109. when he aſſures us the Prieſthood of Jeſus Chriſt ſhall never have an end, becauſe he will offer eternally the Sacrifice of his Croſs for the Redemption of Sinners. The tranſgreſſions even of the wicked, Ezek. 18.22, 23. ſay what you will, God will not remember, as the Scripture tells us, from the moment he converts himſelf from them: for I will not (ſaith the Lord by the mouth of his Prophet) the death of a ſinner, but that he ſhould return from his wickedneſs and live. But without doubt you will ſay this Converſion conſiſts in returning into your Church, which in your Letter you invite us to. But can this Propoſition move a Chriſtian, if it could not have been propos'd to him through every Age. ſince the Death of Jeſus Chriſt? And could this have been done Two hundred years ſince, before you had any ſuch thing as a Church? It is of no purpoſe to tell us, as we have ſo often heard, That your Church ſubſiſted always, but that it was inviſible. For can the Church ſubſiſt without Faith;Rom. 10.14. and Faith, ſaith St. Paul, without Preaching; and Preaching without ſome Action that is both publick and viſible? Have not you your ſelves taught us,Conf. de Foy. 28. That where the Word of God is not received, and where the Sacraments are not in uſe, no Man can judge, properly ſpeaking, that there is a Church. All theſe Conſequences have they not made you own, That at that time the State of the Church was diſcontinu'd? How then could any one propoſe to a Neophyte to embrace that Faith which they could not make him know? Nevertheleſs can we, Sir, believe, that for ſo vaſt a time, that according to your ſelves is from the Fourth or Fifth Age to this day, in which you tell us the viſible Church, which was no other but the Roman, was fill'd with Errors, or at leaſt ſince the Tenth Age, when you aſſure us ſhe was fall'n into all manner of Superſtitions and Idolatries: Can we (I ſay) believe, that during ſo long a ſpace of years, the Gates of Heaven were ſhut, the Blood and Death of Jeſus Chriſt were ineffectual, the Kingdom of the Saviour of Mankind ceaſed, and the Empire of the Devil was full, entire, and abſolute within the Houſe of the Son of God? Do's not Jeſus Chriſt himſelf teach us to the contrary,S. Mat. 16.18. S. Luc. 22.32. S. John 14.16. That the gates of hell ſhall not prevail againſt his Church? and that he has pray'd for her, that her faith ſhall never fail; in ſhort, that the holy Spirit ſhall remain with her for ever?

We formerly, Sir, believ'd according to the ancient Principles you taught us, That is was enough to ſhew the truth of theſe words; That there was a ſmall number of the Faithful who liv'd according to outward appearances, in the Communion of the Roman Church, but whoſe Hearts you aſſur'd us never adher'd to its Worſhip; But now you not only bid us preſerve our ſelves from that Illuſion, but alſo tell us, that nothing is more criminal then ſuch a thought; That ſuch a Devotion is injurious to God; That God requires all or nothing; and that ſince he is the Redeemer of both, he will be glorifi'd by both. For 'tis not enough (ſay you after St. Paul) to believe in your heart to juſtice; but you muſt profeſs it with your mouth to ſalvation. We believe you, Sir, and we acknowledge our ſelves oblig'd to you for ſo kindly contributing to confirm us more and more in the Church we are ſo lately enter'd into, by leaving us no further doubt of the newneſs of yours: For from henceforth where can we believe your Church ſubſiſted during ſo many Ages, when you had neither Temples, nor Service, nor Aſſembly, nor Preachers, nor Sacraments, nor Faithful? You have endeavor'd hitherto to come off by telling us, as occaſion ſerv'd, ſometimes that it was viſible, and ſometimes that it was inviſible. You ſaid your ſelf to M. de Meaux, That before the Reformation, P. 120. the truly Faithful were mingled with the reſt in the ſame outward Profeſſion. But thanks be to Heaven, we are now likewiſe taught by you, that we cannot believe without Illuſion, That one of the Faithful can preſerve himſelf in the outward Communion of the Roman Church, altho' his Heart do's not incline to the Worſhip; and that there is nothing more criminal then ſuch a thought. There remains then no further doubt, but that, according to your ſelves, not only the State of the Church, but even the Church it ſelf, to make uſe of your own Diſtinctions, was diſcontinu'd and abrogated for the ſpace of many Ages, for that it could not maintain it ſelf within the Communion of the Roman, which alone had Churches and publick Worſhip: How can we reconcile this with what the Holy Ghoſt teaches us, That the Church is the Handy-work of the Son of God;Epheſ. 5.25, 26, 27. That ſhe is his moſt dear and faithful Spouſe, that he purchaſed upon the Croſs by the Effuſion of his moſt precious Blood; That he himſelf is the Head; 1 Tim. 3.15. That ſhe is the Pillar and Ground of Truth; That ſhe is to be our Judge in all our Controverſies, S. Mat. 18.17. and ſo Infallible, that whoſoever do's not ſubmit to her Deciſions, is to be eſteem'd as a Heathen or Publican; in ſhort, That he will never forſake her, and that he will be always with her to the end of the World? A Chriſtian inſtructed in ſuch Leſſons drawn out of the Holy Writ, can he find any difficulty to incline favourably towards the Roman Church, which you your ſelves confeſs has ſtood from Jeſus Chriſt and the Apoſtles down to this Day, either in full Purity, or at leaſt with ſome Alterations that you pretend have crept into it? We will not enter into an Examination of the Errors that you impute to it, that is not now our Buſineſs: but we muſt needs ſay for our own Juſtification, That among thoſe that gave us the greateſt horror, there are ſome of them in which we ſee you had more Obſtinacy on your ſides then Reaſon.

The Real Preſence, for Example, of Jeſus Chriſt in the Euchariſt, was always repreſented to us as a Rock of Scandal in the Roman Church, as a Shelve to Shipwrack Salvation, and as a Monſter in Religion: yet this Doctrine, deteſtable as it is, was nevertheleſs receiv'd into your Church, and into your Communion with the Lutherans, who never doubted of it, and Preach'd it publickly. It is in vain to tell us, The Lutherans 'tis true believe that Jeſus Chriſt is preſent in the Sacrament, but they don't adore him: For not only your own Writers, as Calvin, Beza, and others, condemn their Practice in this, but maintain, That if Jeſus Chriſt be in the Bread, he ought to be there adored: And your own Church has declar'd by the Mouth of Daillé, P. 66. That if the Subject matter which is call'd the Sacrament of the Euchariſt, be in its ſubſtance not Bread, as ſhe believes, but the Body of Chriſt, as thoſe of Rome hold, it is evident that it may and ought to be ador'd, becauſe the Body of Chriſt is an adorable Subject: Seeing then according to you it is allow'd to believe, that Jeſus Chriſt is in the Sacrament; it ought likewiſe to be permitted, according to your own Tenets, and according to your own Authors, thoſe who believe him preſent, are oblig'd to adore him there. So that properly ſpeaking, the Adoration of the Sacrament is nothing elſe but a Cavil that you make with the Church of Rome, to colour your Diviſion: As the Communion under one Species is another much more viſible, and as ill grounded.

Every one (ſay you) ought indifferently to receive the Cup, Dim. 53. according to the Command of Jeſus Chriſt, againſt which it is unlawful to attempt any thing. By this Article of your Faith we have been always poſſeſs'd with a belief of the neceſſity of Communion in both Kinds, and always thought the contrary Practice an overthrowing of the Conſtitution of the Sacrament: nor ſhould we yet have doubted of it, had not your own Practice at length open'd our Eyes, and diſabus'd us. But now when we hear you determine in your Diſcipline, That the Bread alone ought to be Adminiſtred to ſuch as cannot drink Wine, Art. 7. c. 12. provided they make a Proteſtation that it is not through contempt: Now when we ſee this Cuſtom eſtabliſh'd in your own Temples, why do you condemn that in the Church of Rome, which you allow and practice in your own? If the Command of the Cup be poſitive, it is indiſpenſible; if the Communion in both Kinds be of Divine Inſtitution, it cannot admit of a Modification. But (ſay you) are we oblig'd to Impoſſibilities? Without examining this pretended Impoſſibility, which you ſuppoſe in the Faithful upon very ſlight Grounds, we will ſuppoſe it with you. But ought this want of Poſſibility in any to receive a Sacrament, deſtroy the Sacrament? This Infirmity may diſpence with a Perſon from Receiving the Sacrament, and juſtifie his abſtaining from it: but it can juſtifie neither Miniſter nor Church that gives it ſo divided and ſeparated, if God has declar'd it indiviſible and inſeparable. In fine, if the retrenchment of one of the Species be a violation of the Sacrament, and of the Command of Jeſus Chriſt, no Church nor Reaſon can authorize it. What can we then conclude, when we ſee your Church, as well as that of Rome, practiſe the ſame Retrenchment, but that the Communion in both Kinds is neither of neceſſity, nor commanded.